Dissanayake vs Dissanayake and Others – sllr 2004 volume 2 page 294

In the case between the plaintiff-respondent (representing the interests of the original owners, Rosa Nona and Podisingho Dissanayake) and the 20th defendant-appellant with other defendants (notably the 1st to 6th and 8th to 15th defendants) concerning the partition of the land known as Millagahawatte, the court addressed whether the partition action should be dismissed due to alleged deficiencies in the evaluation of evidence related to possession and prescription claims. It was held that the contesting defendants, including the 20th defendant-appellant, failed to establish exclusive prescriptive possession or ouster, and that the evidentiary requirements under the Partition Law, including the role of a section 12 declaration, remained procedural rather than determinative of title. The ju